For the many confused fans out there, I've broken down several incidents from this season and tried to explain what the new rule (if approved) would or would not cover next season.

The official wording of what the new rule would cover: "A lateral, back pressure or blindside hit to an opponent where the head is targeted and/or is the principal point of contact is not permitted. A violation of the above will result in a minor or major penalty and shall be reviewed for possible supplemental discipline."

Ruutu received a five-minute major for boarding and a 10-minute misconduct on the play. The NHL also suspended him three games for the incident, in which Ruutu plowed Tucker's head into the glass. The hit was from behind. It was a dirty boarding play, and the current rule book more than covers this play. The new rule doesn't apply here.

On the play, Richards was assessed a five-minute major for interference and a 10-minute misconduct, but the NHL did not tack on any supplemental discipline after reviewing the play. Richards hit with his shoulder and didn't leave his feet. According to the current rules, it was legal. Under the new proposed rule, this would be a "blindside" hit and Richards would face both a penalty on the play and a suspension.

No penalty on the play for the hit, but the NHL imposed a two-game suspension for a forearm hit to the head. This hit would not fall under the new rule because it was straight-on and not from the blind side, but the NHL would still suspend in this case simply for the high hit to the head.

No penalty on the play (should have been an interference call, but refs didn't see the play), but the NHL suspended Glencross three games for a high hit to the head. Drury, who didn't have the puck, never saw Glencross coming, hence a "blindside" hit. This would be penalized under the new rule, as well.

Neal received a five-minute major for boarding and a 10-minute misconduct. The NHL also suspended Neal two games for the hit from behind and head shot to Dorsett. Pretty self-explanatory, much like the Ruutu hit on Tucker. The current rulebook takes care of this one.

Five-minute boarding and 10-minute misconduct for Kaleta. The NHL suspended him two games, an easy call with Ross' head banging off the glass. The current rulebook covers boarding, so the new rule does not apply.

Cooke got an interference penalty on the play. You could argue it appeared as though he left his feet to deliver the head shot. The NHL didn't like it, either, and suspended Cooke two games. Here the new rule would definitely apply because Anisimov was unsuspecting.

Kaleta got a two-minute penalty for elbowing, but escaped suspension. No question, this play would be further disciplined under the new rule, given that it was a blindside elbow, even if it wasn't that violent.

Sutton received a five-minute major for boarding and a 10-minute misconduct. The NHL also nailed him with a two-game suspension because Dupuis was sent crashing headfirst into the boards. Again, the new rule doesn't apply here; the current rulebook covers boarding.

Green got two minutes for elbowing. He's lucky it wasn't five minutes and a game. The NHL agreed and suspended him three games for the nasty elbow. The new rule doesn't apply here; the current rulebook covers an elbow to the head.

Carter was not penalized, and the NHL did not believe it warranted anything further. This was a clean hit, according to the current rules, and Salmela simply had his head down while scoring a goal in the slot. But the new rule would definitely penalize Carter because Salmela was unsuspecting. It would be deemed a blindside hit.

Janssen received a five-minute major for interference and a 10-minute misconduct. It could have easily been five minutes for elbowing. Either way, ugly. The NHL also thought so and hammered Janssen with a five-game suspension because he targeted Bradley's head. The new rule does not apply here, however, given the straight-on hit, but the current rulebook covers the penalty and suspension, anyway.

Cooke was not penalized on the play. The NHL reviewed the incident and did not impose any supplemental discipline. Technically speaking, the NHL was right in concluding that Cooke hit with his shoulder and did not leave his feet to deliver his hit. Under the new rule, this would be a "blindside" hit and Cooke would get both a penalty and a suspension. Personally, the hit still bothers me because of Cooke's track record and the universal belief he was out to do some serious damage on Savard.

March 17: Wisniewski on Seabrook

Wisniewski got a two-minute penalty for charging. He left his feet and hammered an unsuspecting Seabrook, who never even had the puck. Wisniewski was avenging a dangerous hit just seconds earlier from Seabrook on Ducks teammate Corey Perry. The NHL was reviewing Wisniewski's hit Thursday. Would the new rule apply here? No, because it was straight-on. The current rulebook takes care of it, given that Wisniewski charged halfway across the ice and leaped at Seabrook, who didn't have the puck.

3/17/2010

OK what's with the NHL? Last year the NHLPA proposes rule changes to deter head shots - the NHL isn't interested. Well it's nothing new - see Scott Stevens vs Big E in 2000 above. Two more almost identical incidents with Richards on Booth and Cooke on Savard, both clearly shoulders aimed for the head. Head vs kevlar - kevlar wins. NHL poster boy Ovechkin with a much milder hit on Campbell, but Campbell's hurt, and we don't want to seem to favour superstars, so he gets suspended. Now the NHL wants to fast track rule changes on head shots?!?

Before this week, ask the NHLPA, ask Booth/Lindros/Salmela, it's long overdue. So why does the league not react until a high profile guy does something that (IMHO) is milder than some of these other incidents? Yet another example of how the league has its priorities completely off target...

3/16/2010

OK, so this was coming sooner or later, but I have some issues with this.

Ovie plays a physical, tough game which is part of what makes him an amazing player (besides his startling propensity to score with his butt on the ice). His hit on Jagr in the Olympics freed up the puck and directly led to a goal. Sometimes he pushes the line on his hits, but can anyone say Scott Stevens?

I didn't see the hit on Campbell as glaringly offensive - sure he gives him a shove near the boards, but not head first nor with any intention that way. Even the league has said they have no problem with the check. The suspension (they say) is due to the fact that an injury resulted. Is that really the benchmark we want to use for assigning suspensions? (If so, I would refuse to get on the ice when opposing teams play the likes of Bergeron, Gaborik etc)

Sadly, the league needed to do something to show Ovie doesn't get different treatment just because he's an Art Ross/Hart candidate, hence the two games. I agree any head shots or intent to injure should carry a suspension, but if the check is clean, and a player lands awkwardly and is hurt, whose at fault?

3/08/2010

Morning news this morning told me that Savard had been hurt. Which I guess means Hockey is back on. I thought they take a break for the olympics?

So you know, I am about two weeks away from having a big writing project I've been working on for two years get published and go to the printers: and that has all my energy. I've been avidly deleting your e-mails and screening your calls--because I can't focus on writing/editing and hockey.